Slashdot Mirror


Your Opinion Counts At CNN — But Should It?

theodp writes "Some people love how CNN employs Twitter to engage its audience. Not Steve Dahl. 'I am not interested in the take of @stinky on the Fort Hood shootings or any other current events,' complains Dahl of the access the media gives to Internet know-it-alls. 'I am watching CNN because I expect them to gather the news, not act as a clearinghouse for any bonehead with a computer, a cable modem and a half-baked opinion.'"

46 of 383 comments (clear)

  1. Yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I am watching CNN because I expect them to gather the news, not act as a clearinghouse for any bonehead with a computer, a cable modem and a half-baked opinion

    Yeah! That is slashdot's job!!

    1. Re:Yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's what I was thinking as I read the blurb.

      If I want solid information I head over to a site like PhysOrg. If I want to see what others are thinking I head to Slashdot.

      News services have become such an opinion mill that it's starting to make it hard to take them seriously. There is a time and place for people to banter on but I don't want it from a news outlet.

      I've seen far too many people around here armed with little more than a high school education think that they have a better understanding of the universe than engineers who are in the field. I know the public opinion on just about anything is 10 times worse. We already have a half a million forums for these people to spout their crap on. Do we really need another?

    2. Re:Yeah! by corbettw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Getting rid of downmods on Slashdot sounds great in theory but it would just result in GNAA posts lingering at 1 (or 2 if the guy doing it has good karma). Which means I'd have to set my threshhold even higher to avoid seeing them, which would bury comments that are actually useful.

      The Slashdot moderation system has its flaws, but it seems to work better than most of the alternatives out there.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    3. Re:Yeah! by conspirator57 · · Score: 5, Funny

      but that will take away the righteousness I feel when down-modding things i don't agree with^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H err... when down-modding useless goatse.cx comments. that's it. yeah.

      --
      "If still these truths be held to be
      Self evident."
      -Edna St. Vincent Millay
    4. Re:Yeah! by OakDragon · · Score: 5, Funny
      So browse at 3 or 4.

      Sorry, I took your advice and now I can't see your post.

    5. Re:Yeah! by BrokenHalo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There is a time and place for people to banter on but I don't want it from a news outlet.

      I'm with you there. I don't know if this applies across the board, since I have neither the time nor inclination to read all the on-line newspapers (I only buy dead-tree papers when I need something to light a fire with), but I am getting a bit tired of endless screen-space devoted to the inarticulate musings of bored housewives and outraged rednecks. And newspapers aren't the only culprits. New Scientist used to be quite a useful aggregation for scientific journal content, but it's steadily turning into a soap-box.

      In the days of the print media, there was something of a class barrier where contributors were expected to know at least something about a subject before pontificating. This survived for a few years with the on-line versions, but now we are seeing a situation where on slow news days we also seem to be getting lumbered with the above-mentioned kind of rubbish presented in a more fleshed-out form as "real" articles under the masthead of formerly reputable newspapers. The Age is a good example of this. I think the editor changed a while ago, and for all the content is now worth, I often feel I might as well be reading Twitter.

    6. Re:Yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've seen far too many people around here armed with little more than a high school education think that they have a better understanding of the universe than engineers who are in the field.

      Yeah! Leave those discussion to those of us who have PhDs in Universal Engineering!

    7. Re:Yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Eliminate the weapon, and you make it a choice: either post something insightful, or don't get modded up.

      Eliminate the weapon, and you make it a choice: either mod 500 posts in a 1000-message thread up, or all 500 posters' signals are lost in 500 posts of GNAA noise.

      Because it takes less effort to downmod a post to -1 than it does to post at 0 or +1, Slashdot's actually readable, even at 0 or -1.

      Taking away downmoderation would require work on the part of every legitimate reader. Most legitimate readers aren't willing to work if they have to click/mod to make everything readable (on a large thread, you'd wind up with carpal tunnel syndrome after the first hour), but the trolls are more than willing to put the time in to make everything unreadable.

      If you want a system where only the "blessed" are heard and the moderation system goes out of its way to emphasize the article and de-emphasize the comments (even to the point of requiring Javascript and multiple mouseclicks to read anything, and putting the comments in the wrong chronological order so that only the most recent few are ever visible), there's Gawker. It makes Digg look useful. Me? I come to Slashdot (albeit in classic mode :) to get away from that sort of thing.

    8. Re:Yeah! by Thansal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem with removing down modding is that there is then no way of filtering out the actual spam, aside from setting your reading level above the default which then means that you miss the ACs with good comments that don't get modded up.

      I still think that the slashdot system is the best I have seen, I just wish there was some more stringent way of knocking people out of the moderating system, and that up mods counted for a lot more than down mods.

      One of the interesting effects of down modding a good comment is that they CAN'T down mod all of the replies that it garners, and there are enough people that read at -1 that there will be comments.

      --
      Do Or Do Not, There Is No Spoon, There Is Only Zuul. Everything in the above post is probably opinion.
    9. Re:Yeah! by Shotgun · · Score: 3, Informative

      EXACTLY!

      Which is why I don't throw chairs at people that just want a phone that makes calls. It can't be an iPhone, because they suck and I don't own a TV anymore...and I'm glad of it. Nothing to watch since Farscape is gone.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    10. Re:Yeah! by Moryath · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I have one other question - in a debate a while back, I posted a link to two Youtube videos about why you should never agree to be "interviewed" by the cops. For the discussion it was on-topic, relevant, and a serious point to be made. Because I'm willing to actually speak my mind on occasion and say the occasional uncomfortable truth in the face of the various bury-brigaders here, I saw at least one downmod of "troll" and two "overrateds"; it was briefly sitting at -1 before someone with half a brain saw it and the trend reversed.

      The surest sign for me that there are bury-brigaders at work on Slashdot, however, is the number of times I've seen old posts (as in 2+ weeks) suddenly drop from 5 down to 4, 3, or in a few cases all the way to -1. What made them 5's two weeks ago and -1's today? Nothing save for the the fact that organized bury-brigaders were launching an attack on my karma because something else I said was antithetical to their warped worldview. They can't downmod you more than once per comment on a given account, but they can find older posts to dishonestly downmod just to get at your karma.

      Hell, I've been downmodded "troll" for correcting someone's bad math before thanks to the bury-brigaders.

      So tell me - how does your "pass the guns and shoot to kill" solution fix these problems?

  2. Ironic Question by MacroSlopp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This question on a site like this seems incredibly ironic.

  3. Comments by sopssa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While I mostly love Slashdot for its comments and the talks between members, it just doesn't work everywhere. If I'm watching CNN from TV, I'm looking for intelligent, fact-checked news and opinions from professionals, not from some mommy who is twittering without understanding any of the issues behind specific things.

    1. Re:Comments by skgrey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If I'm watching CNN from TV, I'm looking for intelligent, fact-checked news and opinions from professionals

      Yes, but unfortunately that's not what you are getting most of the time. CNN is better than most IMO, but what we tend to see is entertainment, not news. How many times do we see these channels making news rather than reporting the news? I'm so sick of seeing this kind of behavior.

      A great example was on Fox recently where they were asking people on the street what they thought of Sharon Osbourne's comments on Susan Boyle. Most people hadn't heard it, as it happened on an Sirius radio show, but Fox was constantly reporting on it. Then Fox tracked down Susan Boyle at the airport (at the same time as Entertainment Tonight and a few other programs) and asked her how she felt. This isn't reporting the news, this is making the news.

      News organizations should be held to reporting the news, being fair about what they are reporting, and being held to a standard. They are worried about ratings, and unfortunately that affects content.

    2. Re:Comments by Seumas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The only thing infusing the news with twitter comments and real time viewer feedback does for me on television is anger me by having the typical mouth-breathing idiot's opinion spewed from their trailer to the rest of the world on a massive broadcast when I'd rather just be getting news. I just want to know what events are right now. I don't need to hear @bootycakes (a real twitter name I saw on CNN once) have their uninformed opinion in 65 characters parroted by Don Lemon over live TV.

      CNN was the last news I bothered to watch on TV and I haven't even really watched that since just after the election. I'm a bit of a news-hound and a political junkie, but too much of this "ireport" and "udecide" and "twitter" and "facebook" and "call in and share your opinion" and "youtube the news" crap has kind of driven me away entirely. I'll just grab the headlines from google news and skip the commentary.

    3. Re:Comments by gad_zuki! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most web commenting is pretty ridiculous amateur-hour nonsense. Its housewives and teens giving us their "wisdom." Web forums have been politicized by partisans. Fringe nutters have turned everything into their own PR outlets.

      Slashdot is slightly better than the youtube/twitter rabble because its a site focused on technology (usually) and has a moderation system. A general news site with any sort of moderation? Madness. I can tolerate slashdot, metafilter, and most of reddit. Everything else is so terrible it makes you realize that crap like "OMG Ghost hunters is the REALZ" or "Vaccines cause autism!!!" is how a lot of people think and critical thinking and a little literacy are the exception, not the norm.

      Dahl is right. While the media needs a check agaisnt bias and poor reporting, I doubt these twitter comments are helping. Looks like they are just lowing the signal to noise ratio even more. I guess anything to help make Wolf Blitzer look smart. I guess Neil Postman has finally been proved right:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death

    4. Re:Comments by Chelloveck · · Score: 4, Funny

      Most web commenting is pretty ridiculous amateur-hour nonsense. Its housewives and teens giving us their "wisdom." Web forums have been politicized by partisans. Fringe nutters have turned everything into their own PR outlets.

      What a typical left-wing liberal comment. The government lets people like you post freely to the internet, so how can we trust them to run our healthcare system? I guess that's what you get when you vote a socialist Muslim Kenyan national into the White House.

      --
      Chelloveck
      I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
    5. Re:Comments by MartinSchou · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Go watch The Daily Shows with Jon Stewart. You'd be surprised just how well they actually cover the news in 20 minutes.

    6. Re:Comments by Duradin · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's not just the masses commenting on articles that are incredibly stupid, their (CNN) reporters and correspondents aren't much better (and their talking heads are nearly as bad).

      During the coverage of the Fort Hood shooting, they had a reporter saying:
      "He had two pistols, one a semi-automatic of a type favored by the narco gangs, so you know how deadly it is." No, I don't know how deadly it is. Other than being a semi-auto pistol I have no clue what brand let alone model he was talking about. He never mentioned the actual weapons.

    7. Re:Comments by gad_zuki! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >they just helped get the word out about what other people were doing (eg, reporting the news).

      When you call an event with 10k people to have 40k people, when your producers are getting the crowd to shout for the cameras, and your opinion shows are showing footage of larger crowds from months ago, then guess what, YOU ARE MANUFACTURING THE NEWS.

      We've seen it before with Fox with the elementary school kids who sang a song about Obama. Fox airs it, says "people are talking," and then their opinion shows say the same thing. This is creating controversy and promoting Rupert Murdoch's views. Its not reporting. Its laughable to think it is.

    8. Re:Comments by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Pretty much. I always thought that the idiocy I saw on gaming forums in the 90s was harmless because it was contained in videogame forums. I mean, things as stupid as platform wars would go away once people would discuss serious things like the federal budget, right? The yahoos going "Nintendo 4eva!" would disappear, right?

      I'm pretty convinced now that I was wrong on that. The political discourse I'm seeing now uses the same terminology and rhetorical constructs as those used in the platform wars. It's all hot air, partisanship and arguing by putting others down. Using twitter comments on the air is worsening the discourse because it merely gives an official outlet to a lot of people who really have no clue, don't know they have no clue, and don't even care they have no clue. But they are now convinced that because they either got on the air or someone they agree with got on the air means that this is the same as Kissinger agreeing with them.

      I'm not saying that Twitter can't be used to send interesting comments. I'm saying, however, that Twitter is used by the media in the worst possible way right now: to further turn news into entertainment of the worst kind: reality TV.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    9. Re:Comments by ZekoMal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except by every means, The Daily Show covers more news than the typical mouth-breathing news casters, and does so in a funny way. They don't lie, make shit up, or spend thirty minutes covering Madonna's booger incident via twitter: they show news footage, give a quick 60 second real news blurb, then make a joke.

      Watch Fox News, the real Fox News and not their commentators, and then watch The Daily Show. Report back with which one gave you more information.

    10. Re:Comments by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If I'm watching CNN from TV, I'm looking for intelligent, fact-checked news and opinions from professionals

      Wow. When you find any, let me know, will you?

    11. Re:Comments by parcel · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Except by every means, The Daily Show covers more news than the typical mouth-breathing news casters, and does so in a funny way. They don't lie, make shit up, or spend thirty minutes covering Madonna's booger incident via twitter: they show news footage, give a quick 60 second real news blurb, then make a joke.

      Totally agree. The Daily Show makes news entertaining. Fox makes entertaining news.

    12. Re:Comments by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Insightful? How soon we forget. There's an academic organization that rates the quality of news shows. The Daily Show ranks quite high.

      How do I know about it? This obscure little news aggregation website. You may have heard of it. It's called Slashdot.org.

      http://entertainment.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/04/2320219

    13. Re:Comments by gabebear · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's a modern "Not Necessarily The News".

      Not really, the modern "Not Necessarily The News" is The Onion News Network.

      Craig Ferguson seems like a better source of news than most "news" shows...

    14. Re:Comments by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm familiar with Stewart's own impression of his show. He got interviewed by some of the news commentators on one of the major networks during the campaign season, where they tried to accuse him of being a poor reporter. His come-back was to point out that his show follows another show about muppets making prank phone calls.

      The point is that even though he's on the Comedy Central network, and has had such luminary lead-in pieces as the Crank Yankers, he STILL has nearly as much actual news on his segment as an alleged news segment on an actual news network. They too fill up their time with meaningless interviews from know-nothings, social commentary, and irrelevancies. The fact that the Daily Show actually does come close stands as its own very sad commentary on the state of television news. It is lowest common denominator info-tainment, not news, and calling any of them news is like calling Fox News fair and balanced. Just because it's repeated a lot doesn't make it true.

      Another poster pointed out a 1985 book decrying television news, making the case that the medium by its very nature isn't capable of thoughtful analysis, and I have to agree with it. TV is a game of telephone played among people sitting around a campfire, blown up to global proportions and broadcast 24 hours a day. It's ephemeral, ghostly, unaccountable. Even in this day of wide-spread recording devices, it's still difficult to challenge statements made on TV in any sort of seriousness. The medium and its audience don't want analysis like that, and actively object to it. On the rare occasions that a news network tries it, they get shouted down by the people they are questioning, with statements like, "Why are we going over old ground? We need to progress forward!" The questioner never seems to have an answer for that, and they're left looking dim and obstructionist, when really the only way to get at the truth is precisely that back and forth process.

      So it's left to a comedy show to point out the absurdities posing as statistics that our sober-sided politicians spout on a daily basis. And, incidentally, to other mediums, like say, the Internet, which to this day is largely made up of the written word. It's here, on the Internet, that we can have the necessary back and forth discussion to actually get at the truth.

      You say the Daily Show is crap, I say it's not, you quote detailed samples, I use your own samples to point out the equivalent dearth of fact on other shows, and the people reading this thread will probably be left with an impression that more closely approximates reality than they possibly could have by watching a TV show about it.

      And they can read the whole thread without commercial interruption.

      Sometimes I think broadband is the last thing we need. It kept video out for decades, which was all to the good.

    15. Re:Comments by gad_zuki! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >Watch the coverage of any "demonstration" shown on any news show.

      Bullshit. FOX didnt even cover the big gay rights event in DC a couple of weeks ago. I dont know why some people just cant accept FOX as the partisan outlet they are. Incredible.

  4. Who's Steve Dahl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    and why should I care...?

    1. Re:Who's Steve Dahl by jdpars · · Score: 5, Funny

      Some idiot with a computer and a cable modem.

    2. Re:Who's Steve Dahl by Lil'wombat · · Score: 3, Informative

      Close. Steve Dahl is a former #1 rated daytime talk radio host turned weekly columnist for the Chicago Tribune when his the balance of his contract was bought out and a non-compete in place during a radio format change. His contribution to history was the 1979 riot at Cominsky Park during a double header intermission. The riot occurred during the Disco Demolition entertainment event when a large pile of records (discounted admission if you brought a record) was exploded in center field.

      I think Steve Dahl would agree that your statement is only 2/3rds correct.

      a better statement

      A professional idiot with a Mac and a DSL

      --

      Truth: If it's not one thing, it's another

  5. No it should not matter. by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 5, Informative

    I agree. News in America is dead. It turned into entertainment a long time ago. It isn't so much about news anymore as it is about yellow journalism or picking a station that validate one's political views. I stopped watching American news when I discovered BBC news.

    I would say that Edward R Murrow is rolling in his grave, but he was cremated.

    1. Re:No it should not matter. by oldspewey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      picking a station that validate one's political views

      This is pretty much the crux of it. People actively seek out the information sources (radio, TV, internet) that support the opinions they already hold. Accuracy of information and facts run a distant second, and meaningful analysis runs an even more distant third.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    2. Re:No it should not matter. by cellurl · · Score: 3, Funny

      Agreed. I tell my 12 year old to question all news, and more importantly, to realize that "to yell is to sell", [fear that is]. I turned my TV off after the Nov election. I watch movies and foxnews.com. The only reason I choose Fox is because I don't like the lock CNN has in the airports. I travel every week and it isn't fair that I am forced to watch CNN. Hey slashdot, someone write a map app showing "quiet" spots in airports. Thats where I sit.

      Up to 30k

  6. The ironing is delicious by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How funny is that: A guy airing his opinion on a public medium about how other people's opinions shouldn't be aired on public media...

    We need a CNN story on this (complete with tweets) to bring things full circle.

    -b

    --
    No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
  7. whoops by metamechanical · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am watching CNN because I expect them to gather the news [...]

    Yeah, that's definitely where you went wrong.

    --
    If I had a nickel for every time I had a nickel, I'd be richcursive!
  8. Re:A simple solution by vondo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    CNN, not CNN.com. They put these comments on the air all the time. When they should be, you know, reporting the news. Or better yet, investigating the news.

  9. Re:It's the economy stupid by cluke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To be fair, the BBC are prime offenders at this vox populi crap too. Quite apart from the prime idiocy on display on their "Have Your Say" comments pages, they practically plead for viewers to text or email their views which they then proceed to display and read out live on air. Obivously this is driven by their need for content, any content to fill airtime on their 24-hour news channel, but it is ridiculous that they stoop to parroting some randomly selected half-wit's opinion on complex issues.

  10. People like yelling at the news. by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I remember my Dad Yelling at the TV for whenever those Darn Democrats did A n y t h i n g . And if the news covered too much positive that those darn Democrats did he would change the channel. Hence why like only watches Fox news now... However with CNN just posting the comments from other people it allows think their views have meaning and they may get 2 seconds of fame if they actually read them on the air. They will probably still stick to the station and watch it.

    Just like in the old Roman Days right before the collapse lets hide all the problems of the world and give them a good show. As long as they are kept entertained they wont revolt.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  11. Twitter is not the problem by tmk · · Score: 4, Informative

    The real problem: CNN has no real interest in facts anymore. interview the extremists on every side and leave it there.

    Jon Steward has something to say about the problem

  12. Three words by SlashDotDotDot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    N P R

    --
    /...
    1. Re:Three words by PeanutButterBreath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A lot of folks consider NPR to be a tool of the liberals.

      A lot of folks are ignorant paranoids who think ALL media is a "tool of the liberals" save Fox News and insurgent independent voices like Glenn Beck.

      I doubt you'd won't find many Liberals who are content with NPR's efforts to provide liberal perspectives.

    2. Re:Three words by mdarksbane · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're conflating two separate issues. NPR has a measurable liberal bias, but it's still generally quality, educated news. They don't tend to make shit up, or have a "youtube comments" equivalent section.

      Publications like NPR or Reason are intentionally biased - but they're at least generally well-informed and factual, it's the base premise the authors are using and the conclusions they draw from the facts that is biased. It'd be awesome to have a source that is both quality and unbiased.. but I haven't found one.

      CNN's twitter segments aren't usually particularly biased... but that doesn't make them any higher quality.

  13. Opinion by endianx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I find CNN (and other "news" stations) too often use the internet as a way to inject opinions that they don't want to state themselves because it would make them look bias. For example, you read three message from intelligent people who are in favor of government health care, and one from some moron who is opposed. The message is that the majority of people are in favor and the few who aren't are morons. However, the anchors themselves didn't say anything. They were just giving viewer comments. It is a way to inject opinion in to the segments that are officially reserved for news.

  14. Re:Who again, is watching CNN? by plasmacutter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    CNN siding with democrats?

    "I just got back from Washington DC at a huge protest."

    A protest engineered and promoted by an ultra-right propaganda network for half a year.

    "The lone dissenter to these guys is Fox News; funny how 'the fringe' has a typical FOUR TIMES the ratings of this and other, lesser outlets."

    Those ratings are less indicative of the popularity of their viewpoint and more indicative of just how horrible the alternatives are. If I had a choice between a yugo and walking, i'd choose the yugo too!

    please go back to your bunker, the rest of us in the real world want the government to step in to put a long overdue stop to the insurance industry's "death panels". According to the dingbat right, apparently corporations can never, ever do harm!

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  15. Don't know about the old Karma Powered Trolls? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 3, Informative

    Anyone who has good karma isn't going to post GNAA posts.

    You may notice that your karma maxes out at "excellent." In ancient times, slashdot used to have a points system with no ceiling, so you could accumulate karma levels OVER NINE THOUSAND!!! Trolls would karma whore until they achieved insane karma levels, then skydive from karma heaven with an epic trolling spree. That's why the new system has a ceiling - if you tried something like that now, your karma would run out quickly.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel